The judge, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, perhaps aware of the outrage his ruling might raise, connected his arguments against the state's ban with allusions to the country's past civil rights struggles against sexism and racism.

Protecting tradition, Heyburn wrote, no matter how ancient or deeply held, was not good enough of defense for laws that create different rules for different groups of people.

"For years, many states had a tradition of segregation and even articulated reasons why it created a better, more stable society," Heyburn wrote, in what may likely become one of the most frequently-quoted passages of his decision. "Similarly, many states deprived women of their equal rights under the law, believing this to properly preserve our traditions.

"In time, even the most strident supporters of these views understood that they could not enforce their particular moral views to the detriment of another's constitutional rights. Here as well, sometime in the not too distant future, the same understanding will come to pass."

The implication clear. Believers in traditional marriage are soon to be seen as co-equals with the segregationists, the racists of yesteryear and not just by the tolerant left who've held this view for some time but now by the courts as well.

How long before Churches holding to the traditional view of marriage are seen by the courts as instigators of lawlessness?